Raps you are incorrect, Biggie talked about feeding his Rotts gun powder. Plus, I remember as a kid old ass rednecks talk about fighting dogs, and there were plenty of redneck dogfighting websites. And many of the "fighting" bloodlines were from the South-Midwest. Back in 2000 I used to work with this old dude from the Midwest, siad his sons bred Pits for yrs, going back to the 60s, yeah, like they didn't fight them.And let's not forget Jack London's White Fang, which was beaten in a dog fight by what possibly was a APBT, and this was set pre-1900s (If I remember correctly), and Disney used a APBT for the movie.Dogfightng and the dogs used for them have long been associated with the underclass and low class, from England, and the US. Let's not forget that.

Sure, rappers and ghetto people popularized the bad aspects. But, German Sheperds, Rotts, Dobermans, have all had their infamous time in the spot light...It's just that the sensationalized "bad boy" image of pits goes hand and hand with today's bad boy image.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKrVMzZqtR8

People who own Pitbulls are people who prefer to live in a world of their own making, where the only reality is the lies the make up about Pitbulls. They are uneducated and insult other people as a way of appearing knowledgable about the breed. My whole existence is spent finding ways to eradicate the breed and make society safe once more. No Offence, but Pitbull advocates are complete FUCKING LOSERS WHO SHOULD BE CONSIDERED OXYGEN THIEVES AND LIKE THEIR IDIOT DOGS - PIDIOTS SHOULD BE KILLED EVERY LAST ONE OF THEM. Not trying to upset anyone, but the truth tends to upset those in denial. Pitbulls KILL Children, Men & Women = FACT

What difference does it make? Guns don't kill people, people kill people but everyone is still against automatic weapons, tanks, bazookas and suitcase nukes on private citizens. You take the dangerous stuff away from the people because you know they are going to be wrongly used! I hope this is clear.

Funny by the way how I have never heard of chihuahua eating a baby. Them dogs aren't headcases at all. So breed must matter just a tiny little bit here.

People who own Pitbulls are people who prefer to live in a world of their own making, where the only reality is the lies the make up about Pitbulls. They are uneducated and insult other people as a way of appearing knowledgable about the breed. My whole existence is spent finding ways to eradicate the breed and make society safe once more. No Offence, but Pitbull advocates are complete FUCKING LOSERS WHO SHOULD BE CONSIDERED OXYGEN THIEVES AND LIKE THEIR IDIOT DOGS - PIDIOTS SHOULD BE KILLED EVERY LAST ONE OF THEM. Not trying to upset anyone, but the truth tends to upset those in denial. Pitbulls KILL Children, Men & Women = FACT

Wow. That may have been one of the most idiotic, ignorant, and moronic things i've ever read.

A few FACTS...

The APBT is an extremely human friendly breed. Aggression towards people, even strangers, is not a characteristic of this breed. Any person who knows dogs will even tell you that Pits do not make good watch dogs because of this.

They are great with children. So much so that they were given the nickname "The Nanny Breed."

One of the best temperaments of any breed. The American Temperament Testing Society reported that the APBT scored amongst the highest of any of the over 200 breeds tested by them. They passed at a rate of 95% while the ave passing rate for all over breeds was about 77%.

Most media stories talking about pitbull attacks, are not by the APBT or AmStaff. "Pitbull" is not actually a breed, it is a generic term used to describe any mix of the many breeds that have "pitbull like" physical characteristics.

People who own Pitbulls are people who prefer to live in a world of their own making, where the only reality is the lies the make up about Pitbulls. They are uneducated and insult other people as a way of appearing knowledgable about the breed. My whole existence is spent finding ways to eradicate the breed and make society safe once more. No Offence, but Pitbull advocates are complete FUCKING LOSERS WHO SHOULD BE CONSIDERED OXYGEN THIEVES AND LIKE THEIR IDIOT DOGS - PIDIOTS SHOULD BE KILLED EVERY LAST ONE OF THEM. Not trying to upset anyone, but the truth tends to upset those in denial. Pitbulls KILL Children, Men & Women = FACT

Look we all know you had a terrible experience due to Pits, but what if those were Presa Canarios or Cane Corsos, chances are you might not be here to tell the tale.

What if it had been two bull terriers or English Staffies, chances are you'd have the same feelings. Pitbulls kill, German Shepherds kill, Rotts kill, Dobermans kill, Collies kill, Cocker Spaniels kill and are crazy neurotic dogs.

Funny by the way how I have never heard of chihuahua eating a baby. Them dogs aren't headcases at all. So breed must matter just a tiny little bit here.

Yes, the problem is a little to do with the breed - It's an easy target for idiots like you to stereotype because whenever they do attack, simpletons such as yourself figure it's because of the breed. This is all because the damage is a lot worse than say a chihuahua so your narrow minds get tunnel vision and attack the first target that appears in your mind. Common breads attack people way more often, and a lot of the times it's just as devastating.

It's just like if a juicer hits another douche at a club. The club's full of douches getting in fights, but as soon as Chirpy McLatts hits someone there are news stories romanticizing roid rage for months on end. Pitbulls get the same rap despite the fact that when they were first being bred, any that showed traits of HUMAN aggression were immediately culled to kill those traits. It's ironic that a dog bred NOT to attack humans gets so vilified by the very people that brought it into existance.

I love my little pitbull, Lucy. She's just a few months old and growing like a weed. Totally adorable. My brother just got an APBT/boxer cross who's 6 months old so now they'll be able to play together.

People who own Pitbulls are people who prefer to live in a world of their own making, where the only reality is the lies the make up about Pitbulls. They are uneducated and insult other people as a way of appearing knowledgable about the breed. My whole existence is spent finding ways to eradicate the breed and make society safe once more. No Offence, but Pitbull advocates are complete FUCKING LOSERS WHO SHOULD BE CONSIDERED OXYGEN THIEVES AND LIKE THEIR IDIOT DOGS - PIDIOTS SHOULD BE KILLED EVERY LAST ONE OF THEM. Not trying to upset anyone, but the truth tends to upset those in denial. Pitbulls KILL Children, Men & Women = FACT

Shut the fuck up. That's like saying guns kill people, ban all guns! But forget who is pulling the trigger. The owners of pit bulls are the ones to blame for their aggressiveness. You can take any dog, lock it up and beat the shit out of it and make it attack people, that's a FACT.

Shut the fuck up. That's like saying guns kill people, ban all guns! But forget who is pulling the trigger. The owners of pit bulls are the ones to blame for their aggressiveness. You can take any dog, lock it up and beat the shit out of it and make it attack people, that's a FACT.

The owner of the dogs who attacked E-Kul apparently sic the dogs on him...they could have been standard poddles and done about same or worse damage. Imagine had they been mastiffs.

Couldn't resist but to upload a few pics of mine (and her older brothers).

Her and Ronnie (chihuahua love to battle it out all day long but nothing overly aggressive). And she really, really loves Buddy our old black lab/sheppard. He's turning 13 years old and while she annoys the shit out of him, he always cuddles up to her and keeps her warm at night. I think she thinks he's her momma. It's too cute.

People who own Pitbulls are people who prefer to live in a world of their own making, where the only reality is the lies the make up about Pitbulls. They are uneducated and insult other people as a way of appearing knowledgable about the breed. My whole existence is spent finding ways to eradicate the breed and make society safe once more. No Offence, but Pitbull advocates are complete FUCKING LOSERS WHO SHOULD BE CONSIDERED OXYGEN THIEVES AND LIKE THEIR IDIOT DOGS - PIDIOTS SHOULD BE KILLED EVERY LAST ONE OF THEM. Not trying to upset anyone, but the truth tends to upset those in denial. Pitbulls KILL Children, Men & Women = FACT

Wow. That may have been one of the most idiotic, ignorant, and moronic things i've ever read.

A few bits of Propoganda from the self confessed Pidiot...

The APBT is an extremely human friendly breed. Aggression towards people, even strangers, is not a characteristic of this breed. Any person who knows dogs will even tell you that Pits do not make good watch dogs because of this.

They are great with children. So much so that they were given the nickname "The Nanny Breed."

One of the best temperaments of any breed. The American Temperament Testing Society reported that the APBT scored amongst the highest of any of the over 200 breeds tested by them. They passed at a rate of 95% while the ave passing rate for all over breeds was about 77%.

Most media stories talking about pitbull attacks, are not by the APBT or AmStaff. "Pitbull" is not actually a breed, it is a generic term used to describe any mix of the many breeds that have "pitbull like" physical characteristics.

I could keep going but my point has been made...

Myth : Human-aggressive pit bulls were "culled"

Historically, it is believed that dogfighters removed human-aggressive pit bulls from the gene pool. "Man biters," as dogmen referred them, were "culled" to prevent dog handlers from suffering vicious bites. However, dogmen themselves and pedigrees show a different story. As far back as 1909, George Armitage shares a story in, "Thirty Years with Fighting Dogs." He describes Caire's Rowdy as not a mere man-biter, but as a "man-eater," the most dangerous biter of all.6

In more modern years, a substantial number of champion (CH), grand champion (GR CH) and register of merit (ROM) fighting dogs carry the title of a man-biter or a man-eater. These pit bulls were championship-breeding stock, whose famed owners never for a moment considered culling the dogs. Some of the most well known dogs include: Adams' GR CH Zebo, Indian Bolio ROM, Garner's CH Chinaman ROM, Gambler's GR CH Virgil and West's CH Spade (man-eater).7

In 1974, after a series of high profile news articles written by Wayne King and published by the New York Times, the image of the ferocious fighting pit bull moved from the shadowy world of dogmen into the mainstream. This period, between 1975 and 1979, is known as the "leakage period" when the breeding of pit bulls drastically increased through gang members and drug dealers, who wanted the "toughest dog" on the block, as well as by pet pit bull breeders.8

While some dogmen of the past may have culled human-aggressive dogs to keep their stock free of man-biters, once the leakage period began, there is no evidence that similar selective pressures were maintained.9 As early as 1980, pit bull attacks begin headlining newspapers, "Another Pit Bull Attack Reported; Boy, 8 Slashed," as well as reports about pit bull owners trying to bolster the breed's "deteriorating" public image, "Pit Bull Attacks As Owners Fight Image."

Myth Pit bulls are not unpredictable

Despite pro-pit bull claims that pit bulls are not unpredictable, the breed frequently attacks without provocation or warning. It is well documented by humane groups that to excel in dogfighting, pit bulls were selectively bred to conceal warning signals prior to an attack. For instance, a pit bull may not growl, bare its teeth or offer a direct stare before it strikes. Unlike all other dog breeds, pit bulls are also disrespectful of traditional signs of submission and appeasement.16

According to expert Randall Lockwood, pit bulls are also liars. In a 2004 law enforcement training video, taped when Lockwood was vice president for research and educational outreach for the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), he shares the following story:

"Fighting dogs lie all the time. I experienced it first hand when I was investigating three pit bulls that killed a little boy in Georgia. When I went up to do an initial evaluation of the dog's behavior, the dog came up to the front of the fence, gave me a nice little tail wag and a "play bow" -- a little solicitation, a little greeting. As I got closer, he lunged for my face."17

If a pit bull can fool an expert such as Lockwood, how can the average citizen anticipate a pit bull's future action? In a separate example, animal behavioral expert Peter Borchelt was sued after the pit bull he was training for a client "suddenly" attacked an ex-fireman. After encountering Gabriel Febbraio on the street and assuring him that the pit bull was friendly, the dog broke free from Borchelt and attacked Febbraio in the groin. The jury awarded Febbraio $1 million dollars.18

The Nanny Dog Myth Revealed From 2004 to 2010 59 US children were killed by the family's, babysitter's, neighbor's or friend's pit bull.

The pit bull apologia would have you believe that their fighting bred dogs are just like any other dog in many ways, but so superior in their unparalleled love and devotion for children they were commonly known as "The Nanny Dog" throughout the late 19th and early 20th centuries. If pit bulls are held in low esteem today, it is only due to ignorance and the gullible acceptance of biased news reporting because, once upon a time, pit bulls were the most beloved dog in England and the United States.

A google search brings up 77,100 results for the term "nanny dog." While some sites bestow the Nanny Dog mantle on the American Pit Bull Terrier or the American Staffordshire Terrier and some lead you to productions of Peter Pan, most of the results lead you to 21st century blogs and news articles about the Staffordshire Bull Terrier.

120 sites dedicated to the Staffordshire Bull Terrier include this phrase in support of the fighting nanny dog mythology,"These dogs were renowned for their courage and tenacity and despite their ferocity in the pit were excellent companions and good with children. In fact it was not unknown for an injured dog to be transported home in a pram with the baby!" Frankly, even if this anecdote were plausible, let alone true, this doesn't support a nanny dog claim so much as it supports a sociopathic, baby abusing, dog abusing, parent claim.

Dig as hard as you want, the pram story is all you'll find to support the Nanny Dog myth in any of these sites. You won't find a single citation, quote or reference of any kind to a 19th century, or early 20th century text. Since the Staffordshire Bull Terrier enthusiasts didn't see fit to support their claims, I decided I would have to find the origin of the Nanny Dog myself.

Meet the Nanny Dog - the Staffordshire Bull Terrier, England's ultimate fighting dog and, inexplicably, the supposed dog of choice to care for England's children in the 19th and early 20th centuries.

It is not hard to find old references to the Bull Terrier. The various histories and descriptions of the breed largely agree with each other. After bull baiting was banned in England, Coalminers in various cities including Staffordshire were at a loss for blood sporting alternatives for their beloved, courageous bulldogs. So, they developed another blood sport - pit dog fighting. Sadly, they soon found their bulldogs were not suited to win in the pit.

According to a 1908 New York Times article,"The old lovers of the bulldog found to their dismay that sometimes a terrier, with only quickness and a pair of punishing jaws to recommend him, would kill a bulldog while the latter was merely hanging on. The bulldog would be brave to the death of course, and would withstand pain that the terrier would never endure, but that was poor consolation when the terrier had killed the dog.The dog fighters were, however, as persevering a set of men as were the bull baiters, and they set to work to remodel their favorites for their new occupation. They began to cross their bulldogs with the white English terrier, a breed now practically extinct, but the same in every respect, save color, as the modern Manchester or black-and-tan. The progeny was named the bull terrier, the greatest fighting machine, pound for pound, on four legs. The bull terrier had the courage of the bulldog and the jaws and quickness of the white terrier. Moreover, he has the terrier's way of fighting. He does not simply take a hold and stay there. He takes a hold and begins to eat his way through and tear and worry. If his first hold doesn't suit, he takes another. If he gets his adversary by the throat, he will tear out the throat in a minute or so and end the battle.""There is perhaps no more beautiful illustration of the results of artificial selection than is provided in the history of the bulldog. It is a wonderful example of patient and skillful breeding for an object that is not wholly ignoble.We can agree to disagree on that last point.

It is a bit confounding that the New York Times author neglected to mention the Staffordshire dog fighter's even more stupendous genetic achievement, that of creating an unstoppable "fighting machine" that can also be used to nanny their children.

Nineteenth century dog breed books, such as The Illustrated Natural History (Mammalia), by Rev. JG Wood (1853), and The Dogs of the British Islands, by J.H. Walsh (1878) very precisely describe the deadly nature of the Bull Terrier, including an account of a Bull Terrier's attack on a rhinoceros by a dog "called Venus in derision of her ugliness."(Wood, p. 311) Walsh suggests that, "unlike the bulldog, he (the Bull Terrier) is an excellent companion for the male sex, being a little too violent in his quarrels to make him desirable as a ladies' pet (p. 221)." Nanny Dog? Not so much.

In 1894, Rawdon B. Lee wrote A History and Description of the Modern Dogs of Great Britain and Ireland in which he explains that in the middle of the 19th century, fanciers began to breed bull terriers as "a gentleman's companion" and began showing them. It was about this time that the Staffordshire Bull Terrier began to be recognized as distinct from the Bull Terrier. The Kennel Club in England recognized the Bull Terrier in the last quarter of the 19th century, and the Staffordshire Bull Terrier became the pit fighting dog of choice. The Staffordshire Bull Terrier was denied Kennel Club recognition until 1935 because of its reputation as a pit fighting dog.

Lee illustrates the Bull Terrier's unsavory past by revealing that Bulls-eye, one of the meanest dogs in literary history and Bill Sykes' sidekick and alter ego from Oliver Twist (1838) was a Bull Terrier. Dickens describes Bull's-Eye as having a face "scratched and torn in twenty different places..." and..."who by a certain malicious licking of his lips seemed to be meditating an attack up on the legs of the first gentleman or lady he might encounter in the streets when he went out." Charles Dickens also seemed unaware of the Bull Terrier's special powers as a nanny, but was aware of the pit bull's capacity for human aggression.

Charles Dickens' Bill Sikes and Bull's-Eye

Lee (p. 23) contends, "our modern Bull Terrier is a very different creature from what he was half a century ago." According to Lee, they had been perhaps the most popular dog in England, until they were recently supplanted by the Fox Terrier. They were kept for pets and companions, they gained recognition in dog shows, and became fashionable to own among the undergraduates at Oxford and Cambridge. If any pit fighting dog might have been called England's Nanny Dog, surely it would have been the white Bull Terrier. And yet there is no mention of it.

Mr. Lee is perhaps the first recorded pit nutter. He penned what might be the first known iteration of, "It's how you raise them" (p.22, p. 26) which is hilariously followed by the woeful tale of the demise of Mr. Lee's own beloved Bull Terrier, Sam. Sam was incredibly talented and an incomparable companion who, owing to fighting blood on his sire's side, became increasingly aggressive. After killing at least two dogs, Sam was dumped at a warehouse to be a guard dog where he died of a broken heart. 30 years later, Mr. Lee still laments the incredible and bloodthirsty Sam. But, I thought it was how you raise them...

As for 19th century mentions of the "Staffordshire Bull Terrier" that can be found online, there is one. It is a want ad for a fighting dog:Pleshey Chelmsford Wanted a Staffordshire bull terrier dog must have an exceedingly long nose and thoroughly game to face anything and win A tried dog preferred PS For special purpose weight 34 lb 944 (1871 Exchange and Mart and Journal of the Household (p. 614))

Archive searches of British, American and Canadian newspapers going as far back as the 18th century turn up not one single mention of "Nanny Dog" with regards to ANY breed until 1904 when the first stage production of Peter Pan opened featuring a nursemaid dog named Nana. Though J.M. Barrie patterned Nana after his Landseer Newfoundland, Nana has been portrayed by a St. Bernard, and an Old English Sheep Dog in subsequent stage and screen productions. No mention of Nana ever being a Staffie Bull. Not even in Never Never Land.

So, where is the oldest known reference to the Staffie Bull as a nanny dog? In a New York Times article. In 1971, Walter R. Fletcher wrote an article entitled, "A Breed That Came Up the Hard Way" in which he interviewed William R. Daniels and Mrs. Lilian Rant, President and magazine editor for the Staffordshire Bull Terrier Club of America on the eve of the Staffie Bull's being granted permission to be shown in the American Kennel Club's miscellaneous class. It's the first step to AKC recognition and the club wanted to polish their dog's image.

Daniels brings up Dickens' villainous Bull's-Eye again and Mrs. Rant acknowledges that the Stafford "had an unsavory reputation for fighting and violence and his name became associated with ruffians, who cared little for him as a dog but only for his ability in the pit. The Stafford we know today quickly becomes a member of the family circle. He loves children and is often referred to as a 'nursemaid dog.'"

Well, there it is. Mrs. Rant, lover and promoter of the Stafford, is clearly speaking in the present tense about the dog of today (1971) currently being referred to as a 'nursemaid dog' in the United States. She is using a variation of the argument that Mr. Lee used 77 years before about the Bull Terrier, suggesting that the Staffordshire Bull Terrier's unsavory reputation as a fighting dog has been left in the far distant past. She harkens back to Dickens again, before the Staffordshire Bull Terrier even existed as a distinct breed. Her contention that Staffordshire Bull Terriers are OFTEN referred to as nursmaid dogs is a little bit of a stretch, too. In 1971, there were 99 registered Staffordshire Bull Terriers in the United States. As editor of the club's magazine, she must have been at the center of all conversation about the breed. It is likely that she either coined the nickname or promulgated it through the magazine, and the term may have gained popularity among those few Stafford enthusiasts who subscribed to her magazine.

A timeline search does not turn up a mention of the "nanny dog" until 1987 in an archived Toronto Star article entitled, Move to Outlaw Pit Bulls Under Study in Several Cities.

"Breeder Kathy Thomas, president of the Staffordshire Bull Terrier Association said, 'We're aware of the fighting - there's a lot of it in the Hamilton area. We only sell to family homes.'"

"Thomas, mother of two young children, said her eight Staffordshires are 'wonderful with children. In England, our Staffies were called the nanny-dog because they were gentle with kids.'"

Here's where the lie begins to get twisted into its most bizarre and current form and the Nanny Dog myth jumps on the crazy train. The Nanny Dog argument is no longer valid in the way that Mrs. Rant used it in 1971 when the general public was not aware of contemporary dog fighting. By the 1980s, dog fighting had become a generally recognized problem and initiatives to ban pit bulls were beginning. Kathy Thomas acknowledges that there is dog fighting going on all around her in 1987 near Toronto. She can no longer say that the Staffie was once, long ago, in Dickensian England a fighting dog, but has been transformed by many years of selective breeding to be a gentle nanny dog. The dogs are fighting all around her. So, the lie becomes that Staffordshire Bull Terriers were ALWAYS known as nanny dogs. They snuggled with the babies by day, ripped out throats and gutted each other by night and, returning from the fight, snuggled once again with the baby in the pram, this time ripped to shreds and soaked in blood.

It took about 16 years for the story to mutate into the Nanny dog of England - historic fighter and lover of children. But, the myth did not really take off for another 4 years, when Mrs. Rant published her book in 1991, Staffordshire Bull Terriers: Owner's Companion. She uses the term "nursemaid dog" three times and significantly says, " He has a great affection for children, having earned the title 'nursemaid dog' many years ago." (p.117) In this instance, "many years ago" means about 20 years previous, when she first coined or adopted the term.

And how about the history of the term "America's Nanny Dog" referring to the American Pit Bull Terrier or the American Staffordshire Terrier? 5,570 results come up for that query. Again, you cannot find one single citation, source or reference to a text from the 1940s that confirms this assertion. A google timeline search for "America's Nanny Dog" shows the earliest online publication date is September 25, 2007 as an opinion piece in the online publication, Times-Standard entitled "America's Nanny Dog" by Tyla Hafstrom. It is a complete fabrication and an utter lie.

Go ahead and prove me wrong, not with a single primary source, but with a preponderance of evidence that demonstrates the incredible existence of the baby loving fighting dog that was so beloved and so popular in times gone by that it was commonly called the nanny dog.

This, by the way, doesn't count.

This is the truth of the Stafforshire Bull Terrier today. Note this one is in fighting trim and has a a heavily scarred muzzle. This ain't no nanny dog.

Hold on wait there is more...Myth: Pit bulls pass the American Temperament Test

In 1977, Alfons Ertel designed the American Temperament Test in hopes of creating a uniform temperament test for dogs. Of the 75 million dogs that populate the U.S. today,20 about 933 are tested per year (0.001% of all dogs). The temperament data published by the group is not based upon scientific random sampling of any dog breed. It seems it would be virtually impossible to develop such a reliable study, as the base population source group is unidentifiable.

Due to the temperament data being objectively statistically unreliable, it is also highly misleading. Pit bull advocates frequently use this misleading data to point to the breed's good temperament and to advocate against breed-specific laws ("Pit bulls pass the ATTS test more often than beagles!"). Yet anyone one who has a minimal understanding of critical statistical analysis should be able to see that the ATTS "breed statistics" temperament data21 is essentially valueless.

The 12-minute test stimulates a casual walk through a park with a range of encounters. The test focuses on stability, shyness, aggressiveness and a few other factors. According to the group, the overall pass rate (the combination of all breeds) is 81.6%.22 Unlike the AKC's Canine Good Citizen test, no part of the ATTS test is performed without the dog owner present. It also fails to evaluate the most basic scenario that leads to aggression: How a dog reacts when it sees another dog.

Myth : The media conspiracy against pit bullsPit bulls have the highest propensity and frequency of any dog breed to be involved in a severe mauling. Members of the media understand this and are quick to report such attacks. The reason why "Child Suffers Dog Bite" does not dominate dog attack news headlines is due to the lower degree of injury inflicted. In 2008, the death of 2-month old Zane Alen Earles, who was killed by the family's Labrador puppy, captured over 1,000 news headlines and countless blog postings.12

Recently, a writer from British Columbia commented on the "media conspiracy" claim voiced by pit bull advocacy groups. In a charming, yet biting piece titled, "Belligerent Bassets?" writer Andrew Holota, points out the ridiculous nature of this claim:

"Yessir, there are oodles of poodles popped by cops all the time, and the press does not report it.

What is true is that there is an absence of media regarding the collective damage inflicted by the pit bull breed since the early 1980s. In a recent 7-year period, from 2005 to 2011, pit bulls killed 128 Americans, about one citizen every 20 days.14 By 2013, pit bulls are projected to maul 200 Americans to death since 1998, the year the CDC stopped tracking fatal dog attacks by dog breed, and over 250 people since 1980.15 Major news agencies are AWOL on these important issues.

Myth : Fatal attack statistics about pit bulls are false

Pro-pit bull groups argue that the 20-year fatal dog attack study (from 1979 to 1998) issued by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention in September 2000 is inaccurate because the study relied "in part" on newspaper articles. Pit bull advocates say that pit bull fatalities are more extensively reported by the media, therefore the authors of the study (most holding PhD credentials) must have "miscounted" or "double counted" the number of pit bull fatalities.10

As stated in the CDC report, the authors collected data from media accounts as well as the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) registry of fatal attacks. Also, all five authors, Jeffrey Sacks, Leslie Sinclair, Julie Gilchrist, Gail Golab and Randall Lockwood, openly oppose breed-specific laws. This bias is clearly reflected in the CDC report as well.11 If discrepancies were made in the report, it seems more likely that fatal pit bull attacks were underreported not over reported.

Pit bull owners frequently blame the "environment" after a pit bull seriously injures a person. A participant in the Tufts study illustrates this clearly, "If you get some kid that has been beaten all his life, he's going to go out and be aggressive towards people."9 The intention is to assert that an aggressive pit bull must have been beaten or taught to attack by their owners instead of admitting to the genetic traits that define the breed (See: Why do people say that pit bulls "don't let go?)

Pit bull owners frequently direct blame onto victims after an attack too. While "blaming the victim" is a universal phenomenon, pit bull owners do so offensively. The instance involving Wendy Blevins, who DogsBite.org awarded 2008 Victims Advocate of the Year, is an excellent example. After Tina Agerson's pit bull casually walked up to Wendy and her daughter and latched onto the child's head, Wendy immediately straddled the attacking dog and pulled it off Charlotte.

As blood flew everywhere, Agerson stood by and watched. She later said that Wendy "blocked" her from getting her dog. In a subsequent blog post about the incident, a pit bull advocate left a comment asking why Wendy did not have insurance to cover her child's medical bills, which surpassed $110,000 in 30 days. First, Wendy was insured; second, the commenter blamed the victim for being unable to pay these bills after "someone else's dog" nearly killed her child.

In a separate incident, a victim with a history of seizures was blamed for the attack that led to her death. Kelli Chapman was sleeping in her bed when her two pet pit bulls killed her. It was quickly assumed that because she suffered from seizures, she must have had one and the pit bulls "naturally" reacted to it by killing her. Yet, we will never know if she suffered a seizure, and if she did, the order of events: Did a seizure cause the attack or did the attack cause a seizure?10

In nearly all instances of serious and fatal pit bull attacks, pit bull owners, and in some cases authorities, blame the attack on the environment or the actions of the victim. There is a refusal on their part to admit that a pit bull will attack unprovoked. Some of the most grievous examples include a child holding a stuffed animal and a child bumping into a pit bull. "Don't Blame the Dog" believers say such actions sufficiently explain why the pit bull severely injured or killed the child.

Disguise breed nameAs identified in the Tufts study, pit bull owners frequently pass their dogs off as other breeds to diminish a perceived stigma. They also lie about their dog's breed to confuse the public about the pit bull breed and to evade breed-specific laws. For instance, a pit bull owner might mislabel his dog as a bulldog-mix, boxer-mix or lab-mix after a pit bull law goes into effect. Animal groups, however, are the guiltiest of creating confusion about the pit bull breed and this started in 1935.In 1935, the American Kennel Club (AKC) agreed to register pit bull dogs, but only under the name Staffordshire terrier. This was done to distance the breed from its continued use in dogfighting. Thus, the pit bull and the Staffordshire terrier was one in the same, yet held two different names.2In 1972, the AKC renamed the breed to the American Staffordshire terrier. Though the American Staffordshire terrier is by definition a pit bull, many owners claim they are different breeds and shelters adopt out pit bulls under the Staffordshire name to fool unsuspecting members of the public.3In 1996, the San Francisco Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals renamed pit bulls to "St. Francis Terriers." The hope was to make the breed more adoptable. After much screening, about 60 pit bulls were placed. The program was suspended after several of the re-dubbed dogs killed cats.4In 2004, while serving as the director of New York City Animal Care and Control, Ed Boks tried to rename pit bulls to "New Yorkies" also in hopes of making the breed more adoptable. Boks' idea failed, as did his tenure in New York City, which only lasted from 2003-2005.5Meanwhile, dogfighters historically and presently refer to pit bulls as "bulldogs." The American bulldog, which is unrecognized by the AKC, was only recognized by the United Kennel Club (UKC) in 1999.6 Furthermore, the breed was called the "American pit bulldog" up until the 1970s.7

The many names of the pit bull over the course of history is why breed-specific legislation defines the pit bull as a "class of dogs" that includes the following breeds and their mixes: American pit bull terrier, American Staffordshire terrier, Staffordshire bull terrier and American bulldog.8 Despite pit bull owners, animal groups and dogfighters attempts to obscure the name of the pit bull breed, well-written breed-specific laws always encapsulate the pit bull's many names.